32 Comments

Good interview with James J. O’Meara. Thanks. He makes good points, and he brings them together in informative ways. It is a welcome change among white groups to see this topic discussed in a rational manner.

Years ago there was a list of leaders ofgay/les/bi/etc organizations making the rounds. The compiled names of the leadership were all Jewish (google the appropriate search terms to find it). What do you think the significance of that is? Trying to take you guys over???

So the work is not so much an attempt to portray homosexuality as the root & salvation of Western Civilisation, but has more to do with elucidating that aspect of contemporary Cultural Marxist dispensation which:

1) ‘Stigmatizes*’ all forms of male association (especially where physical prowess is exhibited or prized) as homoerotic, implying men interested in such must have homosexual leanings;
2) ‘Stigmatizes’ any man interested in cultural pursuits as effeminate (thus again implying homosexuality).

(*from a straight perspective)

Furthermore by promoting those aspects of homosexuality most offensive or unappealing to straight men, these implicit associations work to destroy the very type of male associations which would potentially offer a vector for resistance, dissent & revolt against the current order – and clearly would be requisite to the establishment of a new one.

On the opposite side there is also the promotion of the ‘thug’ (encapsulated by the ‘negro-gangster’) as some kind of masculine ideal, especially in regards to his supposed sexual appeal to (white) women. Therefore young white males are channelled by such conditioning into adopting certain stereotypes like:

1) The hipster/emo girl-boy – an effeminised type who is free to pursue his cultural interests but only in line with leftist ideology;
2) The whigger – a type that attempts to ‘ape’ the negro in the hope of receiving some of his prodigious sexual mojo;
3) The boor – a sports-obsessed, beer-swilling, dullard who consciously eschews anything he sees as being ‘queer’.

None of which of course are ideal positions from which to create a viable culture of dissent… At any rate, no positive ideal role-model for the white male is provided.

If that’s roughly what’s being suggested then it’s an interesting thesis that does seem to explain much about why these stereotypes are being promoted today. Certainly I see these kinds of things all over the place but have never really tied them together in this way before.

I’d like to address Axon’s commentary within the framework of the metapolitical project.

The Adversary Forces know the surest, strongest way to destroy a Culture, much less Civilization, is to ensure the removal of the effectiveness of the Warrior Caste. While it is best, from their perspective, to destroy them in the womb, it is just fine to geld them in practice, and replace them with kinder, gentler males – not Men, males.

If I am reading O’Meara correctly, Axon extends his most compelling point – that the Cultural war against “homosexuals,” and, by extension, “homosexuality,” is part of a larger action framework, which seeks to destroy Men, or, in the alternative, replace them with kinder, gentler, emo types, or, in a parody of effective Masculinity, such as the (openly homosexual!) character from “The Wire,” Omar Little.

Note that Omar was an effective anti-hero. Think that was by accident? His nominal adversary, a White major in the police department, was also a homosexual. At the end of the series, if memory served, he was appointed to head up the State Police.

In the metapolitical framework, I suspect counter-currents is intelligently reframing the issue of one Aspect of the Male persona. That is certainly a welcome change from those who use absence of opposition to homosexuality a the (thin) reed they hang all of the opposition to their Betters on.

Went to the Arch Druid’s blog – high mucky muck of the Bards, Ovates, and Druids. He post was about the Mexican Invasion. This traitor was musing how the “vibrant” Mexican “civilization” was going to displace us – basically talking like America was somebody’s else’s Nation and Home. He mused about how he wished he could live to see the unique Hispanic/Asian Society which will come to exist on the West Coast. So I let him have it right on the chin, reminding him that the Ancient Druids were Celitic Patriots and didn’t sit around musing about how great Roman Civilization was going to be for Celts. See the posts of Lugh. If he is representative of American Druidery, I wont ever be sitting at any of their fires.

Went to the Arch Druid’s blog – high mucky muck of the Bards, Ovates, and Druids. He post was about the Mexican Invasion. This traitor was musing how the “vibrant” Mexican “civilization” was going to displace us – basically talking like America was somebody’s else’s Nation and Home. He mused about how he wished he could live to see the unique Hispanic/Asian Society which will come to exist on the West Coast.

Haven’t sen this person’s blog, but strongly suspect anyone who cheers on (1) our displacement (replacement/genocide) by (Mexican “civilization” is in for a rude awakening when they see how our weaker members of our society are treated by the Children of the Sun. Again, Harold Covington has spoken of how our structurally abandoned Elders in nursing homes today are treated by them.

This is a “civilization” that glorifies in the sadistic slaughter of helpless animals, whether they are roosters (poor people) or bulls (wealthier people).

I keep looking or the great “achievements” of this “civilization,” and simply note that a person on welfare in America lives like a king compared to the average Mexican. Of course, as our countries merge, the people of the America That Is will live like Mexicans…

So I let him have it right on the chin, reminding him that the Ancient Druids were Celitic Patriots and didn’t sit around musing about how great Roman Civilization was going to be for Celts. See the posts of Lugh. If he is representative of American Druidery, I wont ever be sitting at any of their fires.

I try to find some good in all that isn’t, and he might have some useful ideas. That having been said, the Pagan Priesthood of my acquaintance lack much of a formal hierarchy at all. I only met them by “accident,” and their focus is on the Eternal Now, and the duty we have to transform the situation before us into something better.

Allowing one manifestation of a Spiritual Impulse to define that Impulse in its entirety hardly seems wise. I suspect that there are numerous opportunities to Do Better, much damn better, in the transformation of that Impulse in its outworking in the material world.

This does present something of an opportunity for someone.

If I might engage in a slight digression, you have hit on a theme that this thread addresses in a peripheral manner, and that is the DUTY we have to our Destiny. This means not being victims of allowing Others to define us, or the situation we seem to find ourselves in, to THEIR satisfaction.

This is a point very few in WN philosophy address, and we are all the poorer for it. Only Harold Covington has tried, and, in doing so, has removed our excuses.

Destiny Implies Duty.

If w can understand the first, the second becomes increasingly apparent.

Movement Past. with few exceptions, provided, to borrow the words of Heath Ledger’s character of The Joker, “Tonight’s Entertainment.” At the end, everyone felt a little better about themselves, a little worse for the situation, and, functionally, demoralized by the magnitude of The Problem, which they (1) understood, and (2) understood there as nothing they could DO about it.

That’s wrong. They could always Do Something, but this was usually something trivial, and defined outside of themselves, by someone outside of themselves.

If their focus was Inward, on the Talents they had earned for this lifetime, this specific Incarnation, they could have worked with what was before them dynamically, and transformed their Talents into Capacities by dealing with the situation before them. THAT was their Duty, to their Destiny.

That is how I see WN developing over time. Only Covingtn realizes the magnitude of what we are up against, and has an actual Plan. based on a cold, hard look at the situation before us. ALL of the correct answers fit into, and support, that framework. The Remoralization of the West requires a new Christianity.

Enya seems very ‘Aryan’ to me. I was always drawn to that music even as a young child. “Sail Away” (not to be confused with the godawful Randy Newman song) and “Only Time” have these tranquil qualities that I’ve never heard duplicated in other music. Lame modern church hymns *try* for the effect they achieve but fail miserably, in my experience. I think they fail because modern religion is just so contrived and they simply don’t attract high caliber artists with integrity and nuance, as a result. At any rate, I’m not sure about the genre of New Age in general (hippified or de-hippified) but I’m definitely willing to believe the plausibility of Mr. O’Meara’s claim about music, there, given the example of Enya.

The sad thing is that today I think the Japanese have been carrying our water for us. Some of their composers re-imagine classical pieces which, being Japanese, they use for video games. Much of this music is among the best that is being made today, though. It’s not taken seriously by Westerners because of its status as “video game music,” but I think much of what they do with Western musical concepts (classical music) would blow many of our people away.

Can I ask what was / is your thought process behind using the word “homoerotic” in connection with the Mannerbund idea? I’m a bit unclear on the reason for linking these ideas. I haven’t listened to this interview. In a previous Stark in interview, Stark asked about homosexuality, homoeroticism and the Mannerbund, and I think you said something to the effect of the Mannerbund dynamic isn’t “necessarily” homosexual. If it’s not necessarily the dynamic, then why use the word homoerotic at all instead of a word like brotherhood, fellowship, or fraternity Whatever the precise meaning of the word, homoerotic connotes sexual.

In the Manifesto printed in the book, I attribute to Ean Frick the distinction of ‘homoerotic but not necessarily homosexual’ to make the distinction btw some kind of sexual preference on the one hand, and the valorization of masculine traits that someone like say Jack Donovan talks about. Homosexuals as a sexual minority are, by definition, not the main issue, but rather the effect of homophobia on the male majority, and thus, on civilization, which is created by males [as Bluher, Evola and Paglia agree].

I took that phrasing from Ean because in the original Mannerbund studies of Hans Bluher ‘eros’ is conceptualized as a spiritual [in the sense of the German Geistliche] power prior to, logically and physically, to any genital expressions.

Frankly it hasn’t been a popular choice, as you and others have voiced objections. The bottom line is that English doesn’t seem to have an adequate terminology, which is after all what one would expect. The subtitle of my book refers to ‘masculinist’ which also comes from the Bluher circle around the journal Die Eigene but isn’t really English; it may be the best word, though.

Lew, this is something that occurred to me as I was editing the podcast. James can speak for himself, but this is how I understand the issue: the homoerotic in this context simply refers to all forms of affection between members of the same sex, and when James says it is not necessarily homosexual, he means that there are many other kinds of affection between members of the same sex, including “male bonding,” brotherhood, fraternity, comradeship, etc. The modern “gay” identity — the notion that there is a homosexual subspecies of sorts — as well as the strong biblical stigma against homosexual behavior or feelings — works to undermine all forms of affection and comradeship between men, loosening the bonds of the groups that are the foundation of civilization, and also providing an argument to admit women into such groups to validate the heterosexuality of the members. There is no question that male groups are not just being broken by the hammer of feminism, but on the anvil of their own hangups about homosexuality which make them receptive to the pressure to include women.

The point that I have made, on top of this, is that simply intensifying attempts to stigmatize and exclude homosexuals is not a solution, because even where no actual homosexuals are around, the specter of homosexuality remains in the mind, and that alone is sufficient to have a chilling effect. Thus the solution here is to deconstruct both the modern “gay” identity and to “get over” the Biblical stigma and hangups. I think that O’Meara’s work is valuable in that regard.

I see O’Meara’s work as part of a broader strategic agenda, which is to circulate ideas that promote division within the Jewish-dominated Leftist coalition, which includes white gays, feminists, and environmentalists, all of whose interests take a back seat whenever they conflict with the Jewish agenda of white race replacement.

So what would Donovan and O’Meara say about polarity in Gay Male relationships? I mean what happens to that if everyone is all manly and what not? Not always but often one can tell who is the “husband” and who is the “wife” in such relationships. And even to an outsider, it’s obvious (from reading interviews, conversations, etc) that such polarity is important to many of these couples. If the O’Mearist school triumphed, would a new stigma be imposed on Gays, namely no more femininity for men and therefore no more polarity in their relationships? Frankly, I can’t imagine much pleasure without polarity, unless sex is just seen as a physical release of tension and therefore the couples “take turns” in relieving and being relieved. Something friends do for each other I guess?

I like Mr Donovan’s work but in one of his articles in archives, he does fantasize about the possibility of Gays leading Straight men because they have more time and energy because unencumbered by family. Well, that’s not going to happen. There can be brotherhood thru good boundaries: they have their subculture and they join with us without bringing it with them. They could even be leaders, but a Men not as Gay Men. Pym Fortuyn was a fine example.

Mr Donovan also wrote a very fine article about the duty of Gay Men not to hit on Straight Men – a step in the right direction.

If I am reading between the lines correctly, O’Meara is explicitly accepting the range of “homosexual/homoerotic” behavior,s without falling into the trap of identifying the entire range only, and exclusively, homogenital.

This is a remarkably mature reading of the situation – O’Meara’s, not mine! – in that, by “stepping over” the junior high school clique behaviors of isolation, and contempt, we have opportunities to develop OUR choices, on OUR terms.

The Adversary Forces seek to deny us THAT, above all, and THAT is the metapolitical context in which i see these issues unfolding.

I have mentioned elsewhere on counter-currents as to how the homosexual community worked intelligently, and with great discipline of purpose, to transform entire city block, one block at a time, in the wake of the riots of an earlier time.

They were effective, and, in time, they prevailed, in large part because they refused to accept THEIR Enemy’s terms and definitions. Seen on the tv news, the name callers looked like uneducated boors, while the homosexuals looked like skilled professionals, who just happened to support rights for homosexuals.

Now, compare those of us who support the metapolitical position, to those who were self-identified as “White Nationalists” in the past – fat men wearing ill-fitting, mismatched, ununiform “uniforms,” whose sole purpose seems to have been little more than discredit The Cause by their personal example of stunningly immature ineptitude.

That’s what I thought, and I figured it was something like that. I didn’t want to speculate, as I wanted to your answers. I think I understand what you’re getting at, though I worry that using term ultimately is going to interfere with the overall message of the book even among fairly literate and discerning people. Eros was the Greek word for the erotic form of love. There is no getting around this. They used phila and agape and other words for the various non-erotic forms of love, and I do think that typically it’s non-erotic affection that operates in these cohesive mens’ groups. It looks like a great book; I’m not disparaging the book just hoping its influence and readership aren’t unnecessarily limited over that word choice which lends itself for good or ill to misunderstanding.

Exactly. Men used to be free to be physical with each other precisely because Homosexuality wasn’t a possibility. When this innocence was lost, and it began to impinge on Consciousness, the freedom was lost. How could it not have been?

Jaego, you might be probably be seeing the question from a judeo-christian perspective, which can be clearly seen in how you talk about lost innocence which reminds us of the jewish myth of the garden of Eden. Men were more affectionate with each other in those days, and sexual contact among some. But sex in those days was something you did, not something you were. If you are afraid of bonding with your comrades because one of them might use that as an opportunity for sexual advances, then you can’t trust your friends or can’t be open and sincere with them and perhaps you should cultivate better friendships.

The modern hedonistic homosexual is not a product of left wing social engineering. He is rather the product of his own impulses being almost entirely unleashed, something that is historically unprecedented. The left, seeing them as a subversive element, made an alliance with them.

The boorishness of the modern heterosexual male is, in part, a response to the visibility of today’s homosexuals. Putting them back in the closet will help them to suppress their unhealthy impulses, allow us to broaden what a heterosexual man can be, and benefit from whatever “culture creation” the homosexual offers.

Your response reflect too much, I think, of the influence of Our Freud, with his notion of [Judaic] “civilization” as the “thin veneer” over [Aryan ] “instinct.” “Unhealthy impulses” indeed. We find this even today in the subway ads contrasting Israel as ‘civilization’ and Palestinians as “barbarians.”

As usual, this is a typically Judaic impudent projection of the barbaric Jew upon the civilized Aryan. As for the “unhealthy instincts” of the homosexual, I would call for meditation on the quote from Frithjof Schuon I adapt in the book; along the lines of it being a failure of imagination, to say the least, and Judaicly impudent, to say the worst, to construe the history of Aryan man as the maximum of cultural and spiritual talent, coexisting with the maximum of moral degeneracy.

It was cleverly reversed by the Frankfurt School, which portrayed instinct as ‘oppressed’ and thus married Freud to Marx, perverting the Archie Bunker Left into the Meathead New Left, and generating precisely the ideology of the “liberated” woman or gay.

My own perspective, of course, is very different, derived from the non-Freudian, non-Judaic Hans Bluher as outlined by Alisdair Clarke.

As for “being released” etc. note the use of the passive voice. Always the rhetorical trick to mask questions about agency. “It just happened.” But WHY were homosexuals [and everyone else, of course] “released” from their inhibitions, and BY whom?

As the advocates of “Institutional Analysis” [viz, “conspiracy theories the Left approves of”] like to say, there’s no need for such crude ideas as secret meetings and Bond villains; the elite simply known their own interests and act accordingly, no secret protocols or signals needed. As Evola or Guenon would say, the Judaic Left calls the shots culturally [“cultural engineering” as you say] because of the conditions, the very atmosphere, of this stage of the cosmic cycle.

Yes the current dichotomy is equally destructive from a hetero perspective. If a young man is not enjoying jew comedies, cruising single’s bars, celebrating his porn collection etc then he is considered ‘gay’ by family and friends. Note the ‘scholastic-monk’ character on Big Bang Theory has had to conform and get a girlfriend.

Yes, this is the main point, the effect on the rest of White society, which is after all the vast majority.

Having exhausted the reruns of Two and a Half Men — I have no interest in the non-Sheen version, and even the kid says don’t watch it! — I’ve been catching up with Lorre’s other show, Big Bang Theory. Watching reruns in syndication means the time lines are jumbled, so which character do you call the “monkish” one? I suspect Sheldon, who I believe in the current seasons has a girlfriend of some kind. Anywho, you are right, there’s a tremendous impulse to get them to “regularize” their lives in sit-com fashion, rather than celebrating their, admittedly irritating, eccentricities.

My goodness, that was refreshing. The worst thing I find happening today is anti-intellectualism. The left has got this pseudo-intellectualism going that I find extremely boring. The conservative right pontificates. I totally understand that painting “The Scream”.

Say what you like about Counter-Currents but it is not afraid to address the concrete problems of the day.

O’Meara is correct, in my opinion, that too many heteros are becoming boorishly masculine to avoid being mistaken for homos. Don’t tell anyone, but these days I often prefer the company of closet gays to the inadequate hyper males. Whatever happened to normalcy?